Quotes of the Day

“We theists must admit that we, like everyone else, are certainty seekers and that we, like everyone else, are willing to accept less than compelling evidence for our favored conclusions and to ignore evidence unfavorable to our beliefs.” — Kelly James Clark, Five Views on Apologetics, pp. 88-9.

“Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.”—Isaac Newton

Advertisements

Rate this:

Share:

Like this:

Related

9 Responses to “Quotes of the Day”

I actually agree with Clark. He isn’t saying we can’t be fair with the evidence, or that we can’t change our minds, but humans have a tendency to be easily persuaded by things that favor our position, and to downplay evidence that doesn’t bode well for our position.

If the context of his remarks corresponds to your take, then I agree; but that is not what he said. He said we “must admit…[we] ignore evidence unfavorable to our beliefs.” In that regard he can speak for himself, not me.

I’d have to unpack the book to get the context of his quote again, and I don’t have the energy to do it. 🙂

Actually, he wasn’t just saying this is a problem with theists. Rather, he was saying theists share the problem with everyone else; i.e. we are not exempt. This was made clear by his statement “like everyone else.”

Research shows that people who have a belief are readily able to determine contradictions by people on the other side, but find ways of reconciling statements on their side. Not only that, but the brain releases chemicals to make you feel better, rewarding you for faulty reasoning that supports your biases.

Jason, if you are not certain of Clark’s context, then your take is spin. Your characterization and his remarks are two different things. Again, he said we must admit we are willing to ignore evidence contrary to our beliefs. That is simply not true – insofar as I am concerned. Such a statement is highly offensive and insulting. If he wants to speak for himself or his limited observation of human phenomena, that’s fine. Honest adults will go wherever the evidence leads. People of integrity honestly assess ALL evidence. To say we must admit to something less says more about Clark than it does about anybody else. Like the man who claimed we all have homosexual feelings (more or less), he can speak for himself – it doesn’t apply to me!

My take is how I understand Clark’s words when reading them now without a context, and as I recall understanding them when I read him to begin with. I actually read this book more than 3 years ago (see https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/what-ive-been-reading-2/). That quote has been sitting in my “to post” box ever since. I just finally got around to posting it! But given your challenge, I decided to dig the book out (I moved, and most of my books have been in boxes).

In the context of his quote he was talking about recognizing our epistemic limitations when we are in dialogue with non-believers. We can present the evidence for Christianity that we are aware of, but there may be other evidence for or against our position that we are not aware of. Furthermore, the success of persuading others to believe depends on both the logic of the argument as well as the will (including our passions, values, and emotions). Then comes the quote in question. Following his quote he goes on to speak of the necessity of listening to what our opponents have to say because we may be wrong, and because we need to know where we share common intellectual ground so we can know where to begin in our presentation of our case for Christianity.

You may find Clark’s comments personally offensive, but I don’t. I don’t think anyone is capable of being as objective as you think they can. While there are some people who are more open to consider evidence contrary to their beliefs/position, I don’t know of anyone who is equally welcoming of both the evidence for and against their position, particularly when the position/issue is of existential importance. For example, I am equally open to the evidence for and against the idea of man-made and man-reversible global warming because it doesn’t really impact my life either way. But the same is not true of God’s existence, the identity of God, etc. I think most people, even people who possess the highest intellectual integrity and desire for truth, are much more comfortable when encountering arguments for their position than when they encounter arguments against it. That’s just human nature. And I think we are much more apt to accept evidence that supports our position than evidence that doesn’t. When we read something that supports our position, we read it to learn. When we read something that challenges our position, we read it with a defensive posture, looking to find the flaws in the arguments so that we can sustain our current beliefs. That’s not to say we may not end up being persuaded by them. We can be. It’s happened to us all, even on important matters. But we tend to be less critical about evidence and arguments that support our position than those that don’t. Why? Because we don’t like to be wrong, particularly on matters of existential or practical importance.

Jason, thank you for taking the time to “dig…out” the context of that quotation. As I stated in Post 3, “If the context of his remarks corresponds to your take, then I agree…”. There is no question people perhaps feel better listening to views corresponding to their own; and my experience leads me to conclude there are many people who dismiss evidence adduced to support contradicting views. So if we consider context, I think we’re on the same page. However, you take that off the table with this remark:

My take is how I understand Clark’s words when reading them now without a context,,,

Without context, we must take his words at face value, not what we think he meant. Charitable interpretation will appeal to context (as I have done), but it does not justify changing the meaning of his words. The fact the quotation needs considerable massaging on your part evidences my point. As I stated, your explanation and his words are two different things. A recent example of this is Michele Bachmann’s insistence that submit means to respect. If she had said, “I used the wrong word. What I meant to say was that I respect my husband. ‘Submit’ was poorly chosen,” that would be acceptable. For her to spin her statement to mean something it doesn’t, isn’t. The words, We…must admit that we…are willing to accept less than compelling evidence for our favored conclusions and to ignore evidence unfavorable to our beliefs, are either true or untrue, depending upon the person. I must admit to no such thing. I AM NOT willing to ignore evidence contradicting my views, and I AM NOT willing to accept weak evidence in support of them. Clark’s words are poorly chosen.